Jump to content

Other Games 21/22

whelk

By whelk
in The Saints

 Share

Recommended Posts

AlexLaw76

AlexLaw76

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Bit of a disastrous result for Burnley that one, struggle to see how they get out of it this time round. Spurs, Liverpool and Man Utd in the next 4.

I'd say they're all but gone, but the other 3 above them are equally bad that they'll always be within touch. It's going to be a low 'safety' total though, I'm pretty sure on that.

The brief bits I have listened to regarding their ownership, they may not be back for a while when they go down. Maybe even a little reflection on what it could have been like for us had we got relegated under Gao

S-Clarke

S-Clarke

Posted
Posted
Just now, AlexLaw76 said:

The brief bits I have listened to regarding their ownership, they may not be back for a while when they go down. Maybe even a little reflection on what it could have been like for us had we got relegated under Gao

Their takeover was a bit weird, the Americans basically leveraged their buy out on the club and saddled them with tons of debt, more than they had before they were sold. Which is a bit insane.

It's not allowed them to move on either as they can't sign anyone. All in all a bit of a sad situation for Burnley and it feels as if they're at a crossroads, they've peddled the Dyce way for many years but as a club they probably need to evolve now. I might be wrong...but if they do go down I think they'll struggle to get back for many, many years.

SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, CB Fry said:

The total required to stay up is going to be absolutely pitiful this year. 

Didn’t someone work out that last season, it turned out we were safe by January or something crazy?

Am looking forward to Turkish popping up and explaining how he wishes 6 Burnley players were in our starting XI (today, that might have been true in fairness)

SuperSAINT

SuperSAINT

Posted
Posted
48 minutes ago, S-Clarke said:

Their takeover was a bit weird, the Americans basically leveraged their buy out on the club and saddled them with tons of debt, more than they had before they were sold. Which is a bit insane.

Indeed!  Believe that they were debt free, prior. 

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, SaintBobby said:

Didn’t someone work out that last season, it turned out we were safe by January or something crazy?

Am looking forward to Turkish popping up and explaining how he wishes 6 Burnley players were in our starting XI (today, that might have been true in fairness)

Why would you be looking forward to that? A while back you could make a case for it, this season things have changed for a number of reasons. A rather strange thing to say, but then you do say a lot of strange things. 

SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Turkish said:

Why would you be looking forward to that? A while back you could make a case for it, this season things have changed for a number of reasons. A rather strange thing to say, but then you do say a lot of strange things. 

A while back (start of the season) someone did make a case for that. You, I think? It's was quite strange and funny then. Now, it's even funnier tbh. So, thanks for the chuckles!

 

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, SaintBobby said:

A while back (start of the season) someone did make a case for that. You, I think? It's was quite strange and funny then. Now, it's even funnier tbh. So, thanks for the chuckles!

 

Like i said a while back could make a case for Burnley’s keeper, 3 of their back 4 and a couple to three of their attacking players getting into our team. Clearly thats changed now (although you could still argue that 2-3 of them would improve our first 11) Just like it’s changed that 15 years ago you could make a case for most Pompey players getting into our team. The only thing that’s funny is you’re repeated ability to fail to grasp even the most basic of things on a football forum. 

Edited by Turkish
SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, Turkish said:

Like i said a while back could make a case for Burnley’s keeper, 3 of their back 4 and a couple to three of their attacking players getting into our team. Clearly thats changed now (although you could still argue that 2-3 of them would improve our first 11) Just like it’s changed that 15 years ago you could make a case for most Pompey players getting into our team. The only thing that’s funny is you’re repeated ability to fail to grasp even the most basic of things on a football forum. 

Yeah, over a 15 year time span, I guess you expect these things to change. Over 6 months...hmmm....maybe a bit less so....

Lee On Solent Saint

Lee On Solent Saint

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SaintBobby said:

Yeah, over a 15 year time span, I guess you expect these things to change. Over 6 months...hmmm....maybe a bit less so....

To be fair to Turkish, I'd take Pope,Mee,Tarakowski and Cornet from them all day long. 

  • Like 3
SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

To be fair to Turkish, I'd take Pope,Mee,Tarakowski and Cornet from them all day long. 

I can't recall exactly, but - to be fair - he wanted more than half of their team (not just 4) and I don't think Cornet was one of them (was he even there at the time?).

I'd take Pope, Tarkowski & Cornet probably. So, maybe 2 or 3.

Anyway, time has moved on.

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, SaintBobby said:

I can't recall exactly, but - to be fair - he wanted more than half of their team (not just 4) and I don't think Cornet was one of them (was he even there at the time?).

I'd take Pope, Tarkowski & Cornet probably. So, maybe 2 or 3.

Anyway, time has moved on.

You don’t recall correctly. I didn’t “want half their team” I simply said when people were arrogantly dismissing Burnley as a shit team, so shit we only managed to finish 4 points above them last season that for at least 6 of their players you could make a case would get in our team. It seems that even this season with them bottom of the league and been utter crap all season that some would take 3-4 of their players. Anyway nice to see you’re backing down after another failing to make another completely ridiculous point. 

Edited by Turkish
SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Turkish said:

You don’t recall correctly. I didn’t “want half their team” I simply said when people were arrogantly dismissing Burnley as a shit team, so shit we only managed to finish 4 points above them last season that for at least 6 of their players you could make a case would get in our team. It seems that even this season with them bottom of the league and been utter crap all season that some would take 3-4 of their players. Anyway nice to see you’re backing down after another failing to make another completely ridiculous point. 

I'll look up what you said at some point. But as you say, it was nearly 15 years ago...

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, SaintBobby said:

I'll look up what you said at some point. But as you say, it was nearly 15 years ago...

I didn’t say that either. Not very good at this are you 

Edited by Turkish
SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Turkish said:

I didn’t say that either. Not very good at this are you 

Sigh....You got it badly wrong on Burnley....not 15 years ago (when you apparently wanted to sign the Skate team), but just a few months ago.

Take it. Move on. Stop blubbing like a baby. God, how tedious.

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, SaintBobby said:

Sigh....You got it badly wrong on Burnley....not 15 years ago (when you apparently wanted to sign the Skate team), but just a few months ago.

Take it. Move on. Stop blubbing like a baby. God, how tedious.

How did I get it wrong? Even now with them bottom of the league plenty would take at least four of their players, so hardly a stretch to say that end of last season there was only 4 points between us that 2 more of their players might improve us is it. Too bad you had a pop at me without thinking it through what you’d said and make yourself look a prat again. Night Bobby x

SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, Turkish said:

How did I get it wrong? Even now with them bottom of the league plenty would take at least four of their players, so hardly a stretch to say that end of last season there was only 4 points between us that 2 more of their players might improve us is it. Too bad you had a pop at me without thinking it through what you’d said and make yourself look a prat again. Night Bobby x

You got it badly wrong. At the start of the season. You wanted more than half of their players (so between 6-11) in our starting line up.

It was utterly ludicrous and laughable at the time. Even more so now. 

Just suck it up and move on. You're allowed to make a mistake. Gees.

Edited by SaintBobby
  • Haha 1
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, SaintBobby said:

You got it badly wrong. At the start of the season. You wanted more than half of their players (so between 6-11) in our starting line up.

It was utterly ludicrous and laughable at the time. Even more so now. 

Just suck it up and move on. You're allowed to make a mistake. Gees.

Are you drunk? With each post you seem to be exaggerating what I actually said more and more.  now it’s up to  definitely wanting 6-11 of their players in our starting line up 🤣🤣  

You don’t appear to understand the difference between the stuff you’re making and saying it’s possible that 6 of their line up might be an improvement on 6 of our players, which the point I was making months ago. Even now with them bottom of the league with one win all season you  say yourself you’d definitely take 3 of them yet you’re trying to say I got it badly wrong. Now that’s laughable. 

SaintBobby

SaintBobby

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Turkish said:

Are you drunk? With each post you seem to be exaggerating what I actually said more and more.  now it’s up to  definitely wanting 6-11 of their players in our starting line up 🤣🤣  

You don’t appear to understand the difference between the stuff you’re making and saying it’s possible that 6 of their line up might be an improvement on 6 of our players, which the point I was making months ago. Even now with them bottom of the league with one win all season you  say yourself you’d definitely take 3 of them yet you’re trying to say I got it badly wrong. Now that’s laughable. 

It was “more than half”, which is 6 at a bare minimum. I’d take 1, quite possibly 2 or 3. A lot less than half!

You were hilariously wrong - but it was ages ago. Move on. 

CB Fry

CB Fry

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

To be fair to Turkish, I'd take Pope,Mee,Tarakowski and Cornet from them all day long. 

And if you add Chris Wood into that, who would have been at Burnley player at the time, thats 5 off the bat who would unquestionably make our match day squad significantly better than it is now. Unless you're going to make out Long and Walcott and Valery and Caballero are all unquestionably better.

For someone doing the "you're wrong, move on" routine it really looks like (yet again) he's the one who is wrong.

Edited by CB Fry
egg

egg

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, Lee On Solent Saint said:

To be fair to Turkish, I'd take Pope,Mee,Tarakowski and Cornet from them all day long. 

Throw in McNeil too please, the just departed Wood and J Rod for the bench. They've got loads of players we'd want. 

  • Like 1
Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, SaintBobby said:

It was “more than half”, which is 6 at a bare minimum. I’d take 1, quite possibly 2 or 3. A lot less than half!

You were hilariously wrong - but it was ages ago. Move on. 

So despite you posting about it until 4am it looks like you are the only person who thinks I’m wrong them. Ever thought it might be you that is hilariously wrong?

Turkish

Turkish

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, egg said:

Throw in McNeil too please, the just departed Wood and J Rod for the bench. They've got loads of players we'd want. 

Yep McNeil and Wood were also two. I remember Charlie Taylor over Bertrand/Perrard was also mentioned as being a possible improvement at that time.  

saint1977

saint1977

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Saint-Reece said:

3-0 Forest now. Playing brilliantly. 

Should be 6-0 as a minimum, Davies superb shot and turn hit the bar at 0-0, Yates missed a free header 8 yards out and good save from Johnson. Their young front two and Spencer have been superb. Worrall had a iffy start but grown into it and now the goal. 

Leicester woeful, Brendan could be on his bike if it’s a heavy defeat. Can’t even blame the Danish lamp post or the past it left back. ‘Are you Derby in disguise’ lol. 

Forest keeper had a brain fart, might be a lifeline for Leicester at 3-1.

Whitey Grandad

Whitey Grandad

Posted
Posted

Another one of my bugbears. BBC nearly missed the second goal because they were too busy showing replays even though the game is going on. Why is another replay of something that we already know about more important than some that that may happen?

It’s like reading an exciting book where you keep going back to read the previous page and then skipping the next.

Dr Who?

Dr Who?

Posted
Posted
34 minutes ago, Turkish said:

No it won’t 

Yeah, should have checked out the fact they had their reserves out 🙄. You would think the holders would want to try and win it again. 

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...